The Coalition of Expensive Chaos

[mowgli]

It's pathetic.

From those cheering, snarling and smirking to those shouting. History will judge them all badly.

Agreed mate i doubt any parliament in the western world behaves like that. These clowns represent our country ffs so god knows what other leaders think of us.

 

[Gashead]

And what's with the arbitrary 25+ age restriction for this amazing new living wage? Shitting on the young, this budget is.

 

[Murphy]

And what's with the arbitrary 25+ age restriction for this amazing new living wage? Shitting on the young, this budget is.

Anyone would think it's something to do with the fact that 18-25's are more inclined to vote Labour.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Anyone would think it's something to do with the fact that 18-25's are more inclined to vote Labour.

Or not vote at all.

 

[Gashead]

Or not vote at all.

You're surprised young people feel disillusioned with budgets like this? It's this kind of dismissal of young people's existence which means they don't vote, not the other way round.

 

[Murphy]

You're surprised young people feel disillusioned with budgets like this? It's this kind of dismissal of young people's existence which means they don't vote, not the other way round.

What actually amazes me is the number of people that I know that I went to school with (bear in mind I went to school with them two or three years ago) who actually voted Conservative. And knowing them fairly well, I find it hard to understand why people in their position who hold their views (unless they've changed dramatically in 12 months which I find hard to believe), voted that way.

 

[Gashead]

What actually amazes me is the number of people that I know that I went to school with (bear in mind I went to school with them two or three years ago) who actually voted Conservative. And knowing them fairly well, I find it hard to understand why people in their position who hold their views (unless they've changed dramatically in 12 months which I find hard to believe), voted that way.

Because mum and dad vote Tory I suspect, that was the case with a lot of people I knew that voted that way. Having an independent mind is overrated these days, apparently.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

And what's with the arbitrary 25+ age restriction for this amazing new living wage? Shitting on the young, this budget is.

Setting the threshold at 25 does seem rather arbitrary, but it's worth pointing out that setting it at something like 18, though ostensibly fairer, would probably have an adverse effect on youth employment.

Rightly or wrongly, most employers work on the assumption that younger workers are a riskier investment (less maturity, less self-discipline, less relevant work experience, less anchored by familial responsibility, etc.), so the opportunity to initially hire them at a lower cost isn't an altogether bad thing.

For what it's worth, I would have set it at 21.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

If you're an employer and you're looking at a 21 year old and a 26 year old to fill one position, you're now more likely to recruit the 21 year old, unless there's some big difference in competence between the two.

It may actually help graduates and course leavers get a foot on the employment ladder, in a slightly cack-handed way admittedly. Whether that was the intention, who knows.

 

[Hooped Wizard]

Fantastic budget.

Especially the limit on child benefit.

 

[Gashead]

Setting the threshold at 25 does seem rather arbitrary, but it's worth pointing out that setting it at something like 18, though ostensibly fairer, would probably have an adverse effect on youth employment.

Rightly or wrongly, most employers work on the assumption that younger workers are a riskier investment (less maturity, less self-discipline, less relevant work experience, less anchored by familial responsibility, etc.), so the opportunity to initially hire them at a lower cost isn't an altogether bad thing.

For what it's worth, I would have set it at 21.

It may actually help graduates and course leavers get a foot on the employment ladder, in a slightly cack-handed way admittedly. Whether that was the intention, who knows.

I think it probably depends on the sort of employment you're looking for, re: whether you see it as a good thing.

For businesses, yes I can perhaps understand that employing a teenager/early 20s does come with higher risk. Although that's not to say all under 25s are crap, and all over 25s are great!! But, as Mark then says, you'll potentially get big business hiring young people instead of over 25s, for one reason only - costs. Leaves competent workers who are 25+ without a job because under 25s 'cost less' and can be used to increase profits.

From the worker's perspective, it could be good for those who are looking for part-time work or aren't completely reliant on their wage to live, gives them a better chance of getting the job. But for somebody who is looking to own their own home etc. up to the age of 25 (which isn't even that young), a reduced wage isn't helpful at all. Also, why should somebody who is 24 earn up to a quid an hour less than somebody who is 26? It's just such a weird age to introduce this 'living wage'.

As CS says, 21 would have been fairer.

 

[Aber gas]

I think it probably depends on the sort of employment you're looking for, re: whether you see it as a good thing.

For businesses, yes I can perhaps understand that employing a teenager/early 20s does come with higher risk. Although that's not to say all under 25s are crap, and all over 25s are great!! But, as Mark then says, you'll potentially get big business hiring young people instead of over 25s, for one reason only - costs. Leaves competent workers who are 25+ without a job because under 25s 'cost less' and can be used to increase profits.

From the worker's perspective, it could be good for those who are looking for part-time work or aren't completely reliant on their wage to live, gives them a better chance of getting the job. But for somebody who is looking to own their own home etc. up to the age of 25 (which isn't even that young), a reduced wage isn't helpful at all. Also, why should somebody who is 24 earn up to a quid an hour less than somebody who is 26? It's just such a weird age to introduce this 'living wage'.

As CS says, 21 would have been fairer.

Even at 21 people will still fall through the net . Not everyone who is 19/20 live at home paying peppercorn rent . I have two colleagues who are under 21 struggling to live independently and make ends meet. Coupled with with the destruction of social housing and housing benefit it's only going to get harder . I wouldn't want to be starting out in this environment.

 

[Modernist]

Probably would have just been quicker to stick a massive middle finger up to anyone aged between 18-21 and anyone who's relatively (or chronically) poor and struggling in society. Government is *meant* to help the most vulnerable in society in my opinion, this is just abhorrent.

That's what the tories do, but people must want it.

 

[Jockney]

so automatic housing benefit scrapped for 18-21 year olds, despite a quarter of the nation's homeless being lgbt.

yo but at least we've got gay marriage and rainbow profile pictures, though.

 

[Alty]

so automatic housing benefit scrapped for 18-21 year olds, despite a quarter of the nation's homeless being lgbt.

I don't follow.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^ Presumably his point is that LGBT folk (and particularly the younger folk within that demographic) are disproportionately affected by homelessness, which is probably true because some parents don't cope very well when their children decide to come out, which makes staying at home either very hard or completely unworkable.

No housing benefit for 18-21 year olds isn't gong to help this problem; on the contrary, it will probably exacerbate it. If everyone cared about LGBT folk as much as young Lawrence does, there would be more fuss about this. Alas, most folk have got it into the heads that supporting LGBT folk starts and ends with giving a tacky rainbow tint to their ugly Facebook pictures, so they're just doing that and nothing else.

I could be wrong. As someone whose heart swelled at the sight of IDS fist-pumping during today's budget speech, I'm probably not the best person here to translate bien pensant lefty into plain English. That's my best guess, though.

 

[Jockney]

^ Presumably his point is that LGBT folk (and particularly the younger folk within that demographic) are disproportionately affected by homelessness, which is probably true because some parents don't cope very well when they're children decide to come out, which makes staying at home either very hard or completely unworkable.

No housing benefit for 18-21 year olds isn't gong to help this problem; on the contrary, it will probably exacerbate it. If everyone cared about LGBT folk as much as young Lawrence does, there would be more fuss about this. Alas, most folk have got it into the heads that supporting LGBT folk starts and ends with giving a tacky rainbow tint to their ugly Facebook pictures, so they're just doing that and nothing else.

I could be wrong. As someone whose heart swelled at the sight of IDS fist-pumping during today's budget speech, I'm probably not the best person here to translate bien pensant lefty into plain English. That's my best guess, though.

you do a mean impression. yeah, all of this.

 

[Alty]

I see. Fair enough.

What are the overall numbers of homeless people, btw?

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

I just used the BBCs quick calculator to see the impact of the budget on me and the wife. Between us we will be £221 better off. Considering we're both working and earn reasonable amounts, it's pretty poor. £221 over a year will make bugger all difference to us, I'd much rather pay that money back in to the system to ease the burden on others.

 

[HertsWolf]

I see. Fair enough.

What are the overall numbers of homeless people, btw?

There are no consistent, accurate official figures as homelessness can be transient. Some stats are based on households not individuals. So 150,000 to 300,000 possibly. If you add in people who are 'staying with friends', maybe triple that.

 

[SUTSS]

I did the BBC calculator and it reckons the difference for me is £0.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

The one thing I read which doesn't seem to have been brought up much is social housing with high earning families. Outside of London, high earning is now set at 2 full time workers with the new minimum wage.

So I know a few people in council houses, comfortably earning £30k+. What will happen to them? Will they lose their current house and be forced into a private rent which is now going to increase as the demand will be going up? I assume it will be this so that they free up some current social houses for the lower earners?

I can see a couple of my relatives losing their jobs to keep their house they've had all their life.....

The way I understand it is that they won't be forced out of their house. They'll just be required to pay a rent to stay, presumably back into the social housing pot. That rent is calculated to be around but a little under the going market rate for that type of property.

The money the social housing pot receives will be used to build more council houses.

That seems to be the plan.

Using the calculator, I'll be £80 better off, woo. But then renewing insurance policies will take about £30 out of that. So maybe about £50 over a year? Crack out the tinnies lads. Yeah, C&B said above, what's the difference.

 

[Pagnell]

The one thing I read which doesn't seem to have been brought up much is social housing with high earning families. Outside of London, high earning is now set at 2 full time workers with the new minimum wage.

So I know a few people in council houses, comfortably earning £30k+. What will happen to them? Will they lose their current house and be forced into a private rent which is now going to increase as the demand will be going up? I assume it will be this so that they free up some current social houses for the lower earners?

I can see a couple of my relatives losing their jobs to keep their house they've had all their life.....

This upcoming rule is going to be difficult for us. We live in a housing association property and I earn over £30k a year (but less than £40k), but thanks to my wife currently not working due to ridiculous child care costs, our disposable cash each month is virtually zero after my £300 a month train costs and domestic bills, food etc. If our rent goes up by £200-£300 a month, that really will tip us over the edge. I'm not sure if we could make that saving. Fortunately, it looks like it won't be coming in until 2017, and my youngest son goes to school in the September of that year. If my wife is working again it won't be an issue, or less of one anyway.

As for the policy as it's being reported, it's a bit ridiculous that someone earning £29,999 a year can theoretically pay £500 a month less for the rent of a property than someone earning £1 a year more. More detailed means testing should be applied. I'm also not sure about the blanket £40k/£30k inside/outside of London rule, it's entirely too black and white. For example, if someone was renting exactly the same property as mine in Hull it would cost at least £300 less a month. Yet, as far as this upcoming policy is concerned, there is absolutely no difference between the two simply because neither is defined as being in London.

However, all that being said, it's not a policy I completely disagree with. After all, why should someone who earns what I earn pay exactly the same rent as someone who earns £12k a year working at McDonalds? I simply think it's not been thought through properly and is too simple, all in the haste to get it out there. Basically, in typical Tory fashion.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

We'll be approx £160 better off. I think I read something about insurance tax has increased though so that will be eaten into quickly when we come to renew our home and car insurance?

Yep, IPT is going up to 9.5% (from 6.0%) which will add about 3.5% to most insurances. Pretty poor move if you ask me. It's a bit of a stealth tax as I'm not sure many people understand that insurance is taxed and even fewer would know the rates and what it applies too.

 

[Aber gas]

There are no consistent, accurate official figures as homelessness can be transient. Some stats are based on households not individuals. So 150,000 to 300,000 possibly. If you add in people who are 'staying with friends', maybe triple that.

There is also a massive difference between government research and the research of charities like shelter and crisis .eg government statistics suggest there are currently approximately 1500 rough sleepers in London whilst crisis found circa 7000 ! It's a very frustrating issue because without acknowledging the scale of the problem it's impossible to deal with homelessness effectively.

 

[silkyman]

I just used the BBCs quick calculator to see the impact of the budget on me and the wife. Between us we will be £221 better off. Considering we're both working and earn reasonable amounts, it's pretty poor. £221 over a year will make bugger all difference to us, I'd much rather pay that money back in to the system to ease the burden on others.

But that's the whole point. The government and their cozy buddies in the press get to shout from the rooftops about how most people will be getting pay rises when it balances out as a handful of people for whom that extra £20 a month is neither here nor there with a smaller number losing £100 a month who won't be able to eat. Because 'being poor' is a lifestyle choice.

 

[HertsWolf]

There is also a massive difference between government research and the research of charities like shelter and crisis .eg government statistics suggest there are currently approximately 1500 rough sleepers in London whilst crisis found circa 7000 ! It's a very frustrating issue because without acknowledging the scale of the problem it's impossible to deal with homelessness effectively.

It's a dynamic situation though, so it genuinely is difficult to calculate the figures. The hidden homeless is really difficult to calculate because at what stage does it turn from 'homeless' to 'not homeless'? A mum who stays at a friends house with her kids after her husband hits her is homeless but not counted as such by the government (even if the kids miss school during that period). For large sectors of the homeless population, schools are the best source of information. Decisions on whether to classify someone as needing 'homeless assistance' seems arbitrary.

I disagree with not knowing the scale of the problem. Everyone knows it's "a big number" and so multiple agencies are tackling it. Is it as high a priority as it should be? Probably not. Did the priority change when Labour was in power? No. Did the priority change when the LibDems had a share of power? No.

Sadly, in this - and most countries - the population prioritises what the media corporations wish to see prioritised.

 

[Aber gas]

It's a dynamic situation though, so it genuinely is difficult to calculate the figures. The hidden homeless is really difficult to calculate because at what stage does it turn from 'homeless' to 'not homeless'? A mum who stays at a friends house with her kids after her husband hits her is homeless but not counted as such by the government (even if the kids miss school during that period). For large sectors of the homeless population, schools are the best source of information. Decisions on whether to classify someone as needing 'homeless assistance' seems arbitrary.

I disagree with not knowing the scale of the problem. Everyone knows it's "a big number" and so multiple agencies are tackling it. Is it as high a priority as it should be? Probably not. Did the priority change when Labour was in power? No. Did the priority change when the LibDems had a share of power? No.

Sadly, in this - and most countries - the population prioritises what the media corporations wish to see prioritised.

It appears to me that tackling homelessness has been given no priority by central government and is basically being left to charitable and religious organisations to deal with . I'm only going from my own experience in the valleys and my home town ( bristol) but the vast majority of outreach work and crisis management is done by shelter / crisis and various churches. Dealing with the local authorities is like wading through treacle when it comes to rehousing / emergency accomodation. Whether this is because of a lack of funds or enthusiasm I don't know. Probably both tbh .

 

[HertsWolf]

It appears to me that tackling homelessness has been given no priority by central government and is basically being left to charitable and religious organisations to deal with . I'm only going from my own experience in the valleys and my home town ( bristol) but the vast majority of outreach work and crisis management is done by shelter / crisis and various churches. Dealing with the local authorities is like wading through treacle when it comes to rehousing / emergency accomodation. Whether this is because of a lack of funds or enthusiasm I don't know. Probably both tbh .

Don't disagree, but it's always been that way and always will. It is a pity that the last government abolished regional governments because this is precisely the kind of activity that they could have co-ordinated.

 

[Gladders]

I just used the BBCs quick calculator to see the impact of the budget on me and the wife. Between us we will be £221 better off. Considering we're both working and earn reasonable amounts, it's pretty poor. £221 over a year will make bugger all difference to us, I'd much rather pay that money back in to the system to ease the burden on others.

No pleasing some people, if you don't want the £221 go buy a big issue for £221 from someone.

Me I'll use the extra money to go towards a holiday, or put it into my kids saving account, cheers.